2. Contact Info

3. Dealer Selection

What makes an SUV? Ask 10 people and you’ll get 11 answers, as no doubt some will change their minds midway through the explanation. There are of course hardcore purists/Luddites who scoff at anything without solid axles, a transfer case, manual locking hubs, leaf springs, and a windshield that folds flat. On the other end of the spectrum you’ve got the people who view the Mini Paceman as the ultimate expression of vehicular sport and utility. (You’ll have to keep reading to find out what we think of it.)

The takeaway should be that today, the SUV marketplace is larger and more diverse than ever. With that in mind, nine judges headed up to the peaceful wilds of Central California’s Santa Ynez wine country to select Motor Trend‘s 2014 SUV of the Year.

Our testing involved two stages. The first was a combination of back-road and freeway driving to cull the large herd — we started with 22 vehicles representing 13 nameplates. During this portion, we focused on big-picture stuff such as ride and handling, seating, noise/vibration/harshness, visibility, powertrain, and overall vehicle quality. After just a few miles, it became obvious which SUVs had a shot at the gold and which simply didn’t. Well, it became obvious to some of us. That’s why we have to sit around and argue for a couple of hours about which vehicles are truly worthy. This year, our first round of cuts resulted in 10 contenders.

We screamed — there was some crying — we argued, and then we took a vote.

The second portion of our test was much more grueling. We began with a 35-mile road loop that covered highways, small-town country lanes, and big, sweeping back roads. Then we returned to our home away from home, the lovely Tres Hermanas Winery, for a 5-mile dirt course that snakes and winds around the winery’s back 40. It’s not hardcore off-roading by any stretch of the imagination, but the dirt portion helps us separate the wheat from the chaff and achieve our ultimate aim: choosing this year’s best SUV.

After two days of loops, the nine judges sat down and the fighting really began. We tried to balance our feelings for a particular vehicle with the six key criteria we use to help select all of the Year winners. We screamed — there was some crying­ — we argued, and then we took a vote. Democracy determined the winner. To see which sport/utility pleased us the most, keep reading.

If you’re like us, the all-new Acura MDX grabs some early points simply for having knocked 8 seconds off its predecessor’s Nürburgring’s Nordschleife lap time. Hey, that’s our kind of SUV. But if you’re demanding better evidence for its boasts of improvement, here you go: Our AWD version’s 0-60-mph time dropped 0.4 second to 6.4 despite a shrunken engine displacement (3.7 to 3.5 liters) yet gained 3 combined mpg (now 21) in part because of the addition of cylinder deactivation. Matched to a six-speed automatic in this trim, the powertrain is backed up by Honda’s excellent Super-Handling-All-Wheel-Drive, which eagerly vectors power to the neediest wheel, including overdriving them to help rotate around corners.

In motion, our drivers were no less impressed. “What a great ride, best of the test,” said Lieberman. “And then you turn the wheel and realize that Acura engineers did an even better job on the MDX’s handling. SUVs shouldn’t handle like this.”

So where did it stumble? Its confusing, dual-screen center-stack infotainment cluster mixes a touch screen with a controller knob and presents it all in simplistic, dated-looking graphics. After struggling to pair his phone, Markus wrote, “The infotainment system is maddeningly obtuse.” That this single fumble blocked its reach for SUV of the Year brass ring goes to show you how significant automotive user-interfaces have become. And, notably, it’s not the first time an otherwise excellent Acura has been sunk by a couple square feet of questionably executed center-stack real estate.

We Don’t Like: Of five versions of the Q5 available, we could only sample this one.

The Q5 has been one of Audi’s best-selling vehicles since its introduction in 2008. For 2014, the Q5 got a full makeover, but its interior and exterior changes are minimal and subtle. The big news is all the engine variants Audi is offering: the 2.0-liter turbo four-cylinder with 220 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque; the 3.0-liter turbodiesel six-cylinder with 240 hp and 428 lb-ft; the 3.0-liter supercharged V-6 with 272 hp and 295 lb-ft; a hybrid 2.0-liter four with 245 hp and 354 lb-ft; and the 3.0-liter supercharged S with 354 hp and 347 lb-ft.

We expected a lot from the SQ5, which was the only variant we got, and it didn’t disappoint. Multiple judges commented that it was easy to forget you were driving an SUV on our drive loop. “Transmission logic perfectly predicts the correct gear for every situation in Dynamic mode, and executes shifts like the very best twin-clutch transmissions with a stirring soundtrack,” said Markus.

We were surprised at how good a driver the SQ5 was, on-road and off. So good, in fact, that we had to drive the SQ5 differently from any other vehicle in the competition. Off-road, we felt like we were driving a WRC car. The drivetrain worked perfectly and really let us hang it out before bringing us back to reality.

The SQ5’s performance capabilities come at a price. Our observed fuel economy for the Audi was 13.8 mpg, and the amazing handling in Dynamic mode made for a pretty firm ride. However, when switched to Comfort mode, the SQ5 softened up nicely.

As mentioned earlier, the SQ5 is the only version Audi could get us, and having no other variants really hurt the Audi. It’s impossible to judge an entire line when you only get to sample the highest-performing version. Audi has the most diverse lineup in the field, and had we been able to experience another variant, the Q5’s fate might have been different.

If there’s one thing BMW‘s X1 isn’t, it’s late to the party. While the Range Rover Evoque, our SUOTY winner two years ago, got the ball rolling in the compact luxury sport/ute segment, the BMW X1 was built to go head to head with competition that hasn’t yet arrived in the U.S. (Audi Q3) or anywhere for that matter (Porsche Macan, Mercedes GLC). Not only that, the base X1 is now the cheapest BMW sold Stateside, making it the current entry point to a brand that prides itself on driving fun. Good thing the X1 has just that in spades.

Per Reynolds: “This reminds us that, when BMW doesn’t have the budget to spend on complex systems and extra power, what you wind up with is something closer to an actual BMW.”

Both of the X1’s available engines also won plenty of praise for their smoothness and power delivery, though some judges were left to wonder if BMW’s 3.0-liter turbocharged inline-six was a little too much for the X1’s chassis. “The larger engine is perhaps overkill,” logged Harwood. “I would prefer the turbo-four if it were my money.”

Despite providing one of the more entertaining drives of the group, a combination of factors ultimately kept the X1 out of the finalist’s circle. Though the BMW’s small size makes it fun to hustle down back roads, it makes for less practicality when it comes to hauling people and gear, a key qualification in a winning SUV. In reality, this CUV drove, looked, and felt much like a European 1 Series five-door with a small lift kit installed.

The X1’s budget build was also an issue. With a starting price of just over $31,000 for rear drive, the X1 was subjected to a severe level of budget cutting. Our all-wheel-drive turbo-four tester topped $45,000, and yet as Lieberman noted, “It showed up not only without navigation or a backup camera, but it had a huge hole in the dash [actually a large, empty cubby], an eternal reminder of all that money you didn’t spend.”

You know that stupid friend of yours who’s a magnet for mischief, but it’s impossible not to love him anyway? He’s like the Buick Encore, which Loh described as “super tall and goofy-looking,” but there’s plenty more to this SUV than meets the eye. The noggin-friendly cabin is high on wow factor and impressed everyone. The accommodating back seat makes the most of the 100.6-inch wheelbase. The Encore lays claim to the brand’s second-best second-row legroom-to-wheelbase ratio, and the rear seat cushions intelligently flip forward to maximize cargo space when the back seat is folded (48.4 cubic feet). “Miraculous packaging makes the rear-seat area super comfy and roomy,” said Markus.

Leggier drivers found the front footwell cramped. Strangely, the driver’s seat power-adjusts for fore/aft position and lumbar support, yet the seatback rake is altered via a hand-cranked lever. Evaluators deemed the interior materials above average, but had mixed opinions on the very brown interior color.

There are way too many buttons on the center stack, and none juices up the wheezy 138-hp engine. The 1.4-liter turbo I-4 will never be mistaken for a Nailhead, and the six-speed transmission’s wide individual gear steps didn’t earn any fans. Even worse, the 9.4-second 0-60-mph time was accomplished with the front-drive Encore — all indications point to the heavier all-wheel-drive version being even less sprightly.

At least it’s quiet, which is expected with Buick QuietTuning touches including an acoustic-laminated windshield and spare tirewell sound-deadening. The ride is smooth, but still affected by the occasional heaving motions symptomatic of short-wheelbase vehicles.

Strong early demand for the Encore confounded the Buick corporate office, but the jury’s still out on the efficacy of the $25-30K premium compact CUV segment. So the Encore receives the Heart of Gold award, just like the one your friend would get.

Yes, the Durango proved a strong contender, breaking into the finalists’ camp by virtue of its honest, hard-working nature. And for such a large three-row SUV, it was surprisingly good to drive.

“More planted on the road than the Jeeps, due to the longer wheelbase and more stable ride,” remarked Loh. True enough, the Durango shares a platform with the Jeep Grand Cherokee, stretched a few inches in order to accommodate a third row of seats. But while several judges preferred the more relaxed, planted ride of the Durango to that of its Jeep cousin, there was plenty we wished Jeep would share with the Dodge. Even the rear BluRay entertainment systems in our Citadel and R/T testers couldn’t make up for an interior that was markedly cheaper, less refined, and noisier once the SUV was underway. That said, the wholly usable third row (even for adults) and easy rear-seat access make the Durango a great choice for parents and others who require plenty of people-hauling capability.

Moreover, the 2014 Durango finally loses its five-speed for a new ZF eight-speed automatic. Paired to the Pentastar V-6 in the Citadel version, the Durango shifted quickly on its own, but not all judges were impressed with the responsiveness of the manual-mode paddles. The R/T and its firmer suspension showed a little better control when the going got twisty.

Unfortunately, the Durango’s lack of refinement kept it from top honors this year. We’re left to wonder what the Durango could be with a little more of the Jeep’s polish.

Wait, didn’t the all-new Hyundai Santa Fe participate in the 2013 competition? Well, yes and no. Last year’s vehicle was the two-row, five-passenger Santa Fe Sport, built in West Point, Georgia, and offering a 6A with your choice of two I-4s: a 2.4-liter making 190 hp and a 2.0-liter turbo dishing out 264 hp. The Santa Fe you see here, while bearing a striking resemblance to its smaller Sport sibling, replaces the slow-selling Veracruz and thus comes as a three-row, six- or seven-passenger crossover that hails from Ulsan, Korea, and uses a 3.3-liter, 290-hp DI V-6 paired to a 6A. So, one pod, two very distinct peas.

One claim they do have in common is neither won the prized Golden Calipers. For the sans-Sport Santa Fe, the reasons were simple: a lack of low-end grunt, a 6A that was stubborn to drop gears, clumsy and vague handling when driven aggressively, and second-row captain’s chairs that developed worrisome squeaks and rattles after just two days of evaluation. Reynolds noted positives after the figure-eight test, but left disappointed following the road drive: “All in all, I’m a bit let down after doing the figure eight, where it felt solid, all of a piece. On the road, it felt clumsy at times and vague and a lot more like an assembly of parts than a unified whole.” Lieberman logged, “There are at least three other seven-passenger SUVs that do a better job than the Santa Fe: the Mazda CX-9, Dodge Durango, and Nissan Pathfinder.”

Still, there was plenty to admire in the new Santa Fe. Most judges found the interior serene, even eerily so. In fact, we were hard-pressed to notice a discernible difference in cabin quietness from the upmarket MDX. Further, we lauded the refinement of the V-6, the model’s impressive content and overall value (a base FWD GLS starts at $29,455; our loaded AWD Limited cost $38,990), and the interior’s quality, ease of use, and space.

But when you’re not even best in segment, it’s impossible to be Sport/Utility of the Year.

Hyundai Santa Fe Limited AWD

Base price

$35,955

Price as tested

$38,990

Vehicle Layout

Front-engine, AWD, 6-pass, 4-door SUV

Engine

3.3L/290-hp/252-lb-ft DOHC 24-valve V-6

Transmission

6-speed automatic

Power (SAE net)

290 hp @ 6400 rpm

Torque (SAE net)

252 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

Accel 0-60 mph

7.3 sec

Quarter mile

15.8 sec @ 89.1 mph

Braking 60-0 mph

125 ft

MT figure eight

28.4 sec @ 0.59 g (avg)

Curb weight (f/r dist)

4291 lb (55/45%)

EPA econ (city/hwy)

18/24 mpg

Energy consumption (city/hwy)

187/140 kW-hrs/100 mi

CO2 emissions

0.96 lb/mi

Finalist: 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee

By: Jonny Lieberman

We Like: Massive capability and drivetrain choices.

We Don’t Like: The versions we’d own are expensive; only the diesel gets mpg you can mention in public.

When Jeep launched the fourth-generation Grand Cherokee three years ago, it was not a complete product. Yes, the platform was new and shared with the larger Dodge Durango (as well as the Mercedes-Benz ML and GL), and the 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 was new, too. But the five-speed automatic transmission was old, and the rest of the vehicle just wasn’t as premium as Chrysler Corporation would have liked. Today, without question, the Grand Cherokee is finally all here.

One aspect we focus on during our of the Year competitions is what we call bandwidth. Basically, how many engines and drivetrain configurations does the vehicle have? Just one engine and drivetrain is thought to be low bandwidth. The refreshed Grand Cherokee is among the highest-bandwidth SUVs we’ve ever tested. The engine choices range from a gasoline V-6 good for 290 hp all the way up to a 6.4-liter Hemi V-8 that cranks out 470 hp and a raucous 465 lb-ft of torque. In between you’ll find a 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 that makes 360 hp, and a truly spectacular 3.0-liter diesel V-6 that stumps up 420 lb-ft of torque, and averaged 21.2 mpg. All four engines are now hooked up to an eight-speed ZF transmission. There are also three choices of 4WD systems as well as the option of air suspension. Again, the bandwidth is high.

As was the praise for the updated GC. “There is an honesty to these Jeeps, a purity of mission,” said Markus. Still, we were most impressed with the Grand Cherokee’s refinement and civilized manners.

So why didn’t the Grand Cherokee win? Ask Reynolds: “Eeek — roly-poly! I don’t like this thing at all. Seats are hard. The vehicle dynamics are simply absent.” At the end of the day, how an SUV drives is just as important as how many options it has. And with the exception of the barnstormer, $70K SRT (to quote Reynolds again, “Who in the world would buy this? In what world is this a rational car-buying choice? It makes no sense at all.”), the big Jeeps didn’t impress us enough on the road. But they came very close.

To contend for Sport Utility of the Year, an SUV must be a standout player within its competitive set. And they don’t get any more competitive than the three-row crossover segment — at least 12 different models are currently available, from the GMC Acadia through the Subaru Tribeca.

Kia‘s recent product assault has produced a couple of winners in other hotly contested segments, so our expectations of the 2014 Sorento were high — perhaps too high. “This vehicle looks better than the past one, but not near as good as what Kia has been putting out lately. It doesn’t have the Euro look to it that other Kias now have,” said Mortara, commenting on the lack of design advancement. The Sorento also took a hit on the engineering front. “There’s just no power to be found from the carryover I-4; it’s a very lethargic-feeling engine. The new 3.3-liter V-6 feels merely adequate,” said Jurnecka. “The powertrains in both vehicles really hold the Kia back.”

Kiino questioned the value proposition, usually a Kia strength. “The Hyundai Santa Fe costs less than the V-6 Sorento and barely more than I-4 but seems like a roomier, better, and more stylish package.”

Most damning were the backwards steps in fuel efficiency. All 2014 Sorentos have lower EPA mpg ratings than 2013 models — as much as 3 mpg less on the combined cycle for the volume-selling four-cylinder models.

So Sorento couldn’t make the finalist cut, but it wasn’t all bad. The interior scored high marks with Jurnecka. “Good-looking interior save for the fake gray wood. Nice center stack design, with clean, clear, easy-to-operate controls. And four power outlets!”

Markus called out the Sorento’s solid build and seating. “Feels solid, substantial. No rattles among all these rows of seats. Great second row seats — oodles of room, good armrests, sun shades!”

That these racy-looking, supercharged fun machines didn’t advance to the finals speaks volumes about our collective diligence and restraint, as the roads that are most fun to rip through in a 510-hp, fat-tired thrill-mobile are found on the longer finalist loop. Those hoping to round off the shoulders of the Rovers’ Michelins were quick to highlight its many virtues in our various categories: fetchingly styled all-aluminum bodywork — design points; eight-speed transmission, active anti-roll bars (standard on V-8s, part of a $1300 Extra Duty package on our V-6), and standard air suspension — engineering excellence points; an optional third-row seat, Terrain Response 2, and all that Born Free/Daktari heritage — intended-function points.

A greater number of dissenters found too many chinks in this latest Landie’s alloy armor, especially as concerned the entry V-6 model, which idles like a diesel, vibrates when cruising near 2000 rpm, and delivers non-linear throttle response. Jurnecka noted, “Frustrating to drive smoothly around town. There’s a tremendous amount of pitch and dive from accelerating and braking, which gets obnoxious after a while.”

The infotainment system drew criticism for its clunky, outdated interface. No useful audio data can be displayed on the instruments screen (even on the V-8’s fully digital cluster); fuel-economy data is crammed onto a single line; and the eco-coach graphics line is just dorky. But the off-road-info screens on the center display are well-executed.

The transmission drew raves, as did the V-8. “Stupid fast, with a smooth auto,” quoth Kiino, and Jurnecka agreed: “Great power. Feels more composed than the V-6.” He summed up our assessment pretty well: “There are too many shortcomings to the V-6 and too few superlatives for the V-8.” So while we love hooning around in the V-8, the lineup doesn’t earn the calipers.

There can’t be a simpler formula anywhere in automobiledom than that behind making a Mini: little on the outside, big(ish) on the inside, with gleeful cornering and instant-grin styling. Unfortunately, being a “brand” requires offering more than just one great model, so the Mini recipe has gradually added ingredients to stretch its array of variants. With the Paceman All4, the Mini may have finally reached the end of its stretch. Did we just hear a loud snap?

First of all, here’s what the Paceman is: a slightly lowered and narrower Countryman with mostly new bodywork, a sloping roofline, a retuned suspension, and slightly lighter weight. Now, what it isn’t: a coherent car. Frankly, many of us questioned whether the Paceman deserved to be in this lineup of often towering SUVs in the first place. Did it slip in through a side door somehow? Actually, no. Despite its appearance, it does possess the proper ground clearance and multi-surface credentials. Moreover, even Mini describes it as the first “premium-grade Sports Activity.” The real problem, though, was how it drives.

Mortara: “This car has the worst steering-wheel kickback I have ever experienced in a non-front-drive vehicle, and it really upsets the car in corners. Hit any kind of bump, and it immediately wants to pull the wheel out of your hands.” “Sure,” began Lieberman, “the new Paceman is a charismatic little weirdo. But it has nearly cataclysmic bump steer, goofy rebounding, and an overall behavior that makes it difficult to predict.” And its Mini-whimsical interior treatment seemed less entertaining in this setting.

The Paceman’s biggest problem was the much nicer-driving BMW X1’s alternatives we had on hand. Lieberman: “Um…$40K, really? I spent the better part of my drive trying to figure out who would spend that on this little guy when you could have the BMW X1 xDrive28i instead!” And, unfortunately for the Paceman, he had a point.

It’s no secret Mitsubishi has been struggling, but with its all-new Outlander, the automaker hopes to turn the tide. Nothing was left untouched, inside or out, and Mitsubishi tossed the book at its latest SUV, packing in every bit of tech it possibly could.

For our competition, Mitsubishi sent a 2.4-liter AWD and a 3.0-liter AWD, both pretty loaded. We did ask for one FWD, but none was available. The most notable change to the Outlander is the exterior styling. Gone is the face only a mother could love, replaced by a much more mature, conventional nose treatment. Some editors even remarked that the Outlander has Land Rover-esque styling.

The interior is definitely an improvement over the last-gen Outlander, though it breaks no new ground and some of it already looks dated. But Mitsubishi is banking on what you can’t see. The Outlander has a massive amount of tech options available: lane departure warning, forward collision mitigation, and adaptive cruise control. For this new Outlander, Mitsubishi offers a 2.4-liter I-4 putting out 166 hp and 162 lb-ft of torque, and a 3.0-liter V-6 that has 224 hp and 215 lb-ft. Many judges preferred the smaller engine, finding it more refined than the V-6, with performance more on par with what was expected. We all thought the V-6 was woefully underpowered.

On our drive loop, the Outlander felt nervous and busy, constantly chattering over every imperfection. Even when the road smoothed out, the ride quality barely improved. Everyone commented on the V-6’s lack of power and how thrashy and coarse the engine note was.

We all conclued that the Mitsubishi Outlander is unfortunately an overwhelmingly underwhelming vehicle. Loh put it best: “The main issue with the Outlander is that it is only barely competitive when it needs to be a bases-loaded, walk-off home run (like our eventual winner). To win this award, the Outlander needed to be more — a lot more.”

Even long before the third-generation Toyota RAV4 hung up its boots, it had claimed its place as the elder statesman of the wonderfully competitive, mainstream compact-crossover set. The old RAV had everything suggestive of its mid-2000s origin: four-speed automatic, aging looks, and an available, marvelously potent 3.5-liter V-6. Surely, the current, fourth-gen model will shed the reputation.

That remains to be seen. The new RAV4 is powered solely by a four-cylinder/six-speed automatic combo, with your pick of front- or Dynamic Torque Control all-wheel drive. The EPA ratings are on par and the power is adequate, but the transmission hates sitting in the overdrive gears.

Mortara teed off on our main grievance against the Toyota: “Suspension tuning is way off on this thing.” Ride and handling guru Reynolds continued: “My biggest problem is the ride quality, which at times is very, very three-dimensional, tossing your head around too much. Sometimes it crashes onto bumps creating excessively high g’s.” Yes, Toyota fans, “excessively high g’s” is bad and will be felt by all occupants.

A lengthy list of interior refinements may alleviate the ride concerns: much improved cabin styling, eight standard airbags, lots of storage space, and an optional (even on our $29K-plus Limited test vehicle!) 11-speaker JBL sound system with a 6.1-inch touch screen and nav. The nav/infotainment software graphics appear to have been coded during the “Tron” era, but much of the functionality is locked out when the RAV is in motion anyhow.

Harwood’s notes are all that’s needed here: “This may have been my biggest disappointment of SUOTY. The RAV4 has never been super exciting, but this RAV is the closest to being an appliance that I have driven to date. There is absolutely nothing compelling about this vehicle. The best I can say is it isn’t offensive.”

Share this article in:

We’ve Temporarily Removed Comments

As part of our ongoing efforts to make MotorTrend.com better, faster, and easier for you to use, we’ve temporarily removed comments as well as the ability to comment. We’re testing and reviewing options to possibly bring comments back. As always, thanks for reading MotorTrend.com.